"As for your expanding on your original point with notions like "universal truths," "mere
ideological construct," and "imperialist," it seems to me that you're going out of your way
to look for differences where none need exist. One can, for example, recognize our
culture as imperialist, which it so obviously is, without any suggestion that Islamic culture
might be superior. Our culture is sweeping the world because it is successful and it is so
successful because, at this time in history, at least, it is superior. That doesn't mean that
there are no inherent negatives in our culture. And it sure doesn't mean that our culture
necessarily "embodies universal truths." It's superior because it works better than any
other. IMO, it works because it best channels human nature in a productive direction.
(Of course, others might have other definitions for success <g>.)"
Successfulness and superiority do not necessarily meant the same thing. The WTC terrorists were "successful", are they superior? What do you mean by "successful"- do you simply mean "bulk"- because that seems to be how you are using the term. Something that "sweeps" the world is successful. Well, it is successful at sweeping the world, but is that success? It certainly isn't the only way to define success, as you mention. And superiority? Superiority is the success of sweeping? It could be defined in many other ways. And is. And has been. |
